Letter: A nation of box-watchers who deserve better
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Sir: Your leading article 'No longer a nation of box-watchers' (22 July) comments on the reported decline in television viewing (Henley Centre study; report, 21 July). When people are asked, in effect, to compare what they are doing with what they were doing, they always tend to say that they are doing a bit less (or more, or the same, depending). There is an enormous amount of much harder 'ratings' data that could also be examined.
Four major points are:
1. Any small decline (say an hour a week) would still leave people watching some 25 hours on average;
2. The social class difference you quote in support of a trend (19 hours a week for ABs, 32 hours for DEs) is nothing new. It does not imply a trend.
3. On your front page (22 July) you report the Chancellor hailing a 'surprise jump' in high-street spending and an 'unexpectedly big fall' in the trade deficit. I do not have a panel of wise forecasters. But I would be more impressed by a movement (say in television viewing) which had been expected, rather than just a one-off blip.
4. You rightly stress the cost of 'creating television that is truly good and innovative'. It is tragic that neither the BBC, nor Peter Brooke, nor economic or media commentators, ever suggest that the licence fee might be increased in real terms. Yet there is strong evidence that viewers would pay more for something they use so much.
Yours faithfully,
A. S. C. EHRENBERG
South Bank Business School
South Bank University
London, SE1
22 July
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments